So for TAMU, brew and any other bracket folks here ...
There was much talk about the conference tournaments mattering little, so do you think we were a 2 all along? Or do you think winning the BET is what pushed us up from a 3 to a 2?
It seems some were saying we'd still behind Baylor and maybe Gonzaga even if we won the BET. If so, were you surprised that winning the tournament moved the needle?
How much of the human element do you think went into us getting a 2 if, indeed, we seemed to be behind on some of the important metrics even after winning the BET?
Just trying to understand the whole process better, so anything y'all want to discuss on this subject would be welcome.
I think it has more to do with who we beat than we just won the BET. Taking out Uconn and then crushing Xavier gave us two more quad 1 wins. If it would have been Providence and Depaul I believe we would have been a 3.
I'm obviously far from the expert but I think it played out exactly how I predicted it would have to play out to get a 2.
We had to win out and do it while playing the most optimal opponents in the BET.
28-6 and winning both regular and post season of a power 6 league while snagging two more Q1 wins was going to be hard to ignore when Baylor won neither.
Quote from: MU82 on March 13, 2023, 10:45:12 PM
So for TAMU, brew and any other bracket folks here ...
There was much talk about the conference tournaments mattering little, so do you think we were a 2 all along? Or do you think winning the BET is what pushed us up from a 3 to a 2?
It seems some were saying we'd still behind Baylor and maybe Gonzaga even if we won the BET. If so, were you surprised that winning the tournament moved the needle?
How much of the human element do you think went into us getting a 2 if, indeed, we seemed to be behind on some of the important metrics even after winning the BET?
Just trying to understand the whole process better, so anything y'all want to discuss on this subject would be welcome.
I think the UCONN win got them to the 2 line combined with Baylor losing to Iowa St. in the B12 tournament.
I know I'm not one of the people that you listed, but I do think the BET win got us to the 2-seed line. The reason I believe so is Xavier's seed (a 3) and UCONN (a 4).
By almost all metrics, UCONN was ahead of Xavier before the BET, which means the committee did take tournament performance into mind.
So by extension, I think they looked at the MU victory and moved them from maybe the top 3 seed, to the last 2 seed.
Feels like tourney games mattered a little more this year. Like the pendulum has started swinging back the other way after hitting the minimal value extreme.
It also feels like overall record mattered a little more this year, while total Q1 wins and SOS mattered a little less. That was good news for bubble teams like Pittsburgh, North Carolina State, and Arizona State and bad news for others like Oklahoma State and Wisconsin.
I also think head to head played a factor in a few spots. Marquette was 8 on the overall list, beat 9 Baylor, and Baylor beat 10 Gonzaga. Xavier at 12 swept 13 UConn. That may have mattered more than in past years.
Sometimes we get too bogged down by numbers, so much so that we lose sight of the most obvious and important true data.
Kudos to the committee for recognizing that when it comes to Big East teams.
Oh, and Championships matta.
I was pretty certainly convinced that Marquette was a 2, they deserved it, but even I was (incorrectly) surprised when I saw that X was given a higher seed than UConn.
Why though? When you think about it clearly Xavier deserved the higher seed because they earned the higher seed.
We've been told that conference record doesn't matter, but in a true round Robin conference where everyone plays each other twice it does matter.
Xavier finished 15-5, UConn 13-7.
Xavier finished in 2nd place in the BE and beat UConn 2x.
Xavier didn't look as good against MU in the BET as UConn did, but they looked very good against Creighton and made the Final, answering any questions left about if they can play well without Freemantle.
So, the BET absolutely mattered.
Kudos to the committee for realizing that sure, UConn had an amazing start to the season with huge wins over Bama and Iowa State, but they ran up the score so much in their cupcakes that it skewed their metrics a bit.
Those big wins and elite metrics still helped them to a 4 seed.
The totality of the body of work earned X a 3 seed and Marquette a 2 seed.
Metrics matta, but wins matta more, and championships matta'd most.
Thanks for your answer, Dr V. I know you were on the "we're a 2 if we win the BET" thing real early, and you turned out to be right.
And I'm glad about that!
It's very clear - we were told many times by the know it alls they were not a 2 and would never move to a 2.
We moved up. I think the Selection Committee was cognizant of the criticism they took by not moving Tennessee up last year and the early Baylor loss coupled with our BET win moved us up. Again, the reason I did not expect this was because historically, they have not done this. Glad to see they did.
This was also evident in the 15-seed given to Princeton. In past years, when teams won on the last day they would just give the team the seed the expected favorite was going to get. Yale would've been a 13, but the Selection Committee used more of the weekend data than they typically have. I'd be very interested to see what would've happened if Vandy had made it to Sunday, considering all the criticism over TAMU last year.
Really, other than a number of one-seed-line irregularities, I they seemed on point. FAU is the one where I really struggle to see why they had them on the 9-line, considering the 7-seeds given to Murray State and Wofford in recent years. In terms of getting screwed, the Owls got a lower seed than precedent would indicate they deserved.
And though I didn't have them in, I was glad to see Nevada get in over Rutgers. I'm used to the SC taking mediocre high majors over mid-major teams that have better resumes. Maybe a product of the larger Selection Committee.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 14, 2023, 06:03:43 AM
We moved up. I think the Selection Committee was cognizant of the criticism they took by not moving Tennessee up last year and the early Baylor loss coupled with our BET win moved us up. Again, the reason I did not expect this was because historically, they have not done this. Glad to see they did.
This was also evident in the 15-seed given to Princeton. In past years, when teams won on the last day they would just give the team the seed the expected favorite was going to get. Yale would've been a 13, but the Selection Committee used more of the weekend data than they typically have. I'd be very interested to see what would've happened if Vandy had made it to Sunday, considering all the criticism over TAMU last year.
Really, other than a number of one-seed-line irregularities, I they seemed on point. FAU is the one where I really struggle to see why they had them on the 9-line, considering the 7-seeds given to Murray State and Wofford in recent years. In terms of getting screwed, the Owls got a lower seed than precedent would indicate they deserved.
And though I didn't have them in, I was glad to see Nevada get in over Rutgers. I'm used to the SC taking mediocre high majors over mid-major teams that have better resumes. Maybe a product of the larger Selection Committee.
Good explanations, brew. Thanks.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 14, 2023, 01:58:21 AM
It's very clear - we were told many times by the know it alls they were not a 2 and would never move to a 2.
It obviously would have been illogical to seed Baylor ahead of Marquette given what happened in each team's conference tournament combined with Marquette's early-season 100-point win over Baylor, but logic has often defied the selection committee.
The reason our "know it alls" ended up failing to predict that MU would get the 2 was that they were guilty of following precedent.
It will be interesting to see next year if this is the new normal.
Quote from: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on March 13, 2023, 11:11:12 PM
Feels like tourney games mattered a little more this year.
Even for relatively minor details. Houston and Alabama were both always going to be #1s, but the "overall #1 seed" going to Alabama seems to have come down to Houston losing its conference title game.
I was one of the people if not the person who talked the most about the challenge of us moving up to a 2 seed. For me it wasn't about us not being able to get a 2 seed, it was responding to all of the posts that went along the lines of "There is no way that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona/Baylor/Gonzaga could possibly be ahead of us" and the idea that if we won the BET, nothing else mattered. We now know for a fact that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona were ahead of us and that even winning the BET didn't change that (in part because of what they did during their conference tournaments). I personally never believed that Gonzaga was ahead of us but there was at least an argument as to why they could be.
That just leaves Baylor. What we know is that we ended up one spot ahead of them on the S-Curve. It's possible that that we were in a virtual tie and we just eeked out ahead of them or it's possible that we were already ahead of them heading into the BET and the BET just solidified it. Only the selection committee knows for sure. Personally, for the reasons Brew articulated, I think the selection committee put a little more weight on conference tourneys this season then they have in the past (which is a good thing IMHO). I agree with Muggsy that the UConn game was the one that likely put them over the edge. That was either our best or second best win of the season and if the committee is fully counting tournament games that is a great notch in the belt to add at the last minutes. But I do wonder if we had lost to Xavier if that would have given the committee an "out". It would have made it easy for them to say "Oh they would have been a 2 if they had won the BET but they didn't so they're a 3". We made the decision on them as difficult as possible and forced them to give us a 2 seed.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 14, 2023, 09:06:00 AM
I was one of the people if not the person who talked the most about the challenge of us moving up to a 2 seed. For me it wasn't about us not being able to get a 2 seed, it was responding to all of the posts that went along the lines of "There is no way that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona/Baylor/Gonzaga could possibly be ahead of us" and the idea that if we won the BET, nothing else mattered. We now know for a fact that Purdue/UCLA/Texas/Arizona were ahead of us and that even winning the BET didn't change that (in part because of what they did during their conference tournaments). I personally never believed that Gonzaga was ahead of us but there was at least an argument as to why they could be.
That just leaves Baylor. What we know is that we ended up one spot ahead of them on the S-Curve. It's possible that that we were in a virtual tie and we just eeked out ahead of them or it's possible that we were already ahead of them heading into the BET and the BET just solidified it. Only the selection committee knows for sure. Personally, for the reasons Brew articulated, I think the selection committee put a little more weight on conference tourneys this season then they have in the past (which is a good thing IMHO). I agree with Muggsy that the UConn game was the one that likely put them over the edge. That was either our best or second best win of the season and if the committee is fully counting tournament games that is a great notch in the belt to add at the last minutes. But I do wonder if we had lost to Xavier if that would have given the committee an "out". It would have made it easy for them to say "Oh they would have been a 2 if they had won the BET but they didn't so they're a 3". We made the decision on them as difficult as possible and forced them to give us a 2 seed.
Logical ... even if you're a ball-knowing know-it-all.
The UConn win was huge, but the Xavier win in complete domination blowout fashion was even bigger.
That's because in the committees eyes, Xavier was a better team than UConn and higher in their Scurve.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 14, 2023, 09:06:00 AM
But I do wonder if we had lost to Xavier if that would have given the committee an "out". It would have made it easy for them to say "Oh they would have been a 2 if they had won the BET but they didn't so they're a 3". We made the decision on them as difficult as possible and forced them to give us a 2 seed.
I had the same thought and very much agree. MU removed an easy (and aguably justified) explanation as to why we didn't move past Baylor.
Heard they were flippin a lotta coins to seed teams dis year
I think MU winning the BET caused them to switch spots with Baylor in the last scrub. As it is they finished 8 and 9 on the final seed list.
If Baylor had not lost so many games in the last couple of weeks, including the early exit in their conference tournament, I think MU would have stayed a 3 even with a win in the BET.
IMHO MU getting a 2 seed required MU winning the BET AND getting help, and both happened.
Duke and Texas A&M are two teams that didn't get the bump some expected despite their conference tournament performances. The result of the UCLA- Arizona conference final didn't seem to have any impact either.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 14, 2023, 06:03:43 AM
We moved up. I think the Selection Committee was cognizant of the criticism they took by not moving Tennessee up last year and the early Baylor loss coupled with our BET win moved us up. Again, the reason I did not expect this was because historically, they have not done this. Glad to see they did.
This was also evident in the 15-seed given to Princeton. In past years, when teams won on the last day they would just give the team the seed the expected favorite was going to get. Yale would've been a 13, but the Selection Committee used more of the weekend data than they typically have. I'd be very interested to see what would've happened if Vandy had made it to Sunday, considering all the criticism over TAMU last year.
Really, other than a number of one-seed-line irregularities, I they seemed on point. FAU is the one where I really struggle to see why they had them on the 9-line, considering the 7-seeds given to Murray State and Wofford in recent years. In terms of getting screwed, the Owls got a lower seed than precedent would indicate they deserved.
And though I didn't have them in, I was glad to see Nevada get in over Rutgers. I'm used to the SC taking mediocre high majors over mid-major teams that have better resumes. Maybe a product of the larger Selection Committee.
First and foremost, thanks for compiling, tracking and reporting on all the bracketology work. It takes a ton of time I know, but it is incredibly work. I just want to make sure Scoop calls this out.
Thanks to TAMU as well to patiently and concisely explain to nuances between seeds. Also awesome work.
I have said this numerous times, but the MU community is heads and shoulders above others because of the understanding of the analytics...and because of the eye tests built on a lot of experience.
Scoop knows balz!
Quote from: forgetful on March 13, 2023, 11:02:22 PM
I know I'm not one of the people that you listed, but I do think the BET win got us to the 2-seed line. The reason I believe so is Xavier's seed (a 3) and UCONN (a 4).
By almost all metrics, UCONN was ahead of Xavier before the BET, which means the committee did take tournament performance into mind.
So by extension, I think they looked at the MU victory and moved them from maybe the top 3 seed, to the last 2 seed.
Maybe. Maybe the committee has some strange standard by which it divides the number of letters in the team's name by its zip code. But a simpler explanation would seem to be that Xavier beat UConn twice and finished two games ahead of them against the same schedule. I would think that alone would justify seeding them ahead.
I think this year was a reminder to some of the self-proclaimed bracketology "experts" that Q1 losses are still losses. Sure, one or two down the stretch won't move the needle much, but teams can't just stack up "quality loss" after quality loss without it affecting their seeding.
And while conference championships may not be an official metric, they are an easy talking point when the selection committee director is getting interviewed by Brian Gumbal on national television.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 15, 2023, 06:29:46 AM
I think this year was a reminder to some of the self-proclaimed bracketology "experts" that Q1 losses are still losses. Sure, one or two down the stretch won't move the needle much, but teams can't just stack up "quality loss" after quality loss without it affecting their seeding.
And while conference championships may not be an official metric, they are an easy talking point when the selection committee director is getting interviewed by Brian Gumbal on national television.
And yet Baylor only moved down two spots on the S curve from the reveal and one of the two teams that passed them needed to go undefeated through the BET and pick up 4 Q1 wins to get one shot ahead. (The other team was only 1 spot behind Baylor to start and went undefeated until their championship game).
Baylor stood still, they didn't drop. We won so much that we caught and passed them.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 15, 2023, 06:50:09 AM
And yet Baylor only moved down two spots on the S curve from the reveal and one of the two teams that passed them needed to go undefeated through the BET and pick up 4 Q1 wins to get one shot ahead. (The other team was only 1 spot behind Baylor to start and went undefeated until their championship game).
Baylor stood still, they didn't drop. We won so much that we caught and passed them.
That's kind of the point. You said it was impossible for us to get a 2 even if we won out, which was a wild hot take given how much winning we did.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 15, 2023, 07:19:46 AM
That's kind of the point. You said it was impossible for us to get a 2 even if we won out, which was a wild hot take given how much winning we did.
I didn't say that actually. I said that specifically about passing Texas which may be what you're remembering given that you responded and said I was crazy.
I did think we were going to get a 3 seed and was wrong but I never thought it was impossible. I repeatedly said that if we could win the BET we would give the selection committee a difficult decision. We fortunately came out on top.
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 15, 2023, 07:51:43 AM
I didn't say that actually. I said that specifically about passing Texas which may be what you're remembering given that you responded and said I was crazy.
I did think we were going to get a 3 seed and was wrong but I never thought it was impossible. I repeatedly said that if we could win the BET we would give the selection committee a difficult decision. We fortunately came out on top.
To be fair, he might be thinking of posts like these... "I think the 2-seed door is slammed shut" isn't quite "impossible", though:
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 09, 2023, 11:41:41 PM
I think with Arizona winning, the 2-seed door is slammed shut. But hey, might as well win the BET and test that theory.
Problem is, Gonzaga may have jumped us on the S-Curve.
Sorry to pile on ol' Tamu, but here's a specific receipt:
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on February 26, 2023, 11:02:44 PM
I know this hard for some to accept, but when it comes to a 2-seed, we don't control our own destiny. We will need some good teams to lose to some bad teams if we want to move up another seed line.
With UCLA beating Colorado today, I think we are down to two remote chances at a 2 seed. We need one of Arizona/UCLA to lose their next three games (they play each other on March 4, whoever wins will be locked in for a 2 seed). Or we need Baylor to lose their next 3. For either option, we need Kansas State to lose at least one of their next two games and it would be helpful if Tennessee lost at least one more (but maybe not necessary). All that happens, and maybe a trip to the BET finals (win or lose) is enough to grab the last 2 seed.
Neither of those scenarios happened. From that post on, Baylor immediately beat OSU before losing twice to Iowa State. Just underscoring how difficult it is to project the bracket with any real certainty, especially with multiple games still remaining in regular season play.
But it's all kumbaya at this point — I'm sure Tamu is thrilled with the 2-seed.
We get great analysis on this board. For that I'm thankful.
If the world could only run on metrics and analytics, no eye ball tests or common sense needed.
Quote from: PointWarrior on March 15, 2023, 10:49:27 AM
If the world could only run on metrics and analytics, no eye ball tests or common sense needed.
TAMU gave his opinion, showed is work with statistics/analytics, and did it in a non-snarky way. I am appreciative of his work, and he adds a heckuva lot more to this board than I do.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 15, 2023, 09:14:18 AM
To be fair, he might be thinking of posts like these... "I think the 2-seed door is slammed shut" isn't quite "impossible", though:
Quote from: TwoWords on March 15, 2023, 10:27:12 AM
Sorry to pile on ol' Tamu, but here's a specific receipt:
Neither of those scenarios happened. From that post on, Baylor immediately beat OSU before losing twice to Iowa State. Just underscoring how difficult it is to project the bracket with any real certainty, especially with multiple games still remaining in regular season play.
But it's all kumbaya at this point — I'm sure Tamu is thrilled with the 2-seed.
You'll notice the words "may" and "think" in both of those posts. I never stated a 2 seed was an impossibility and if you read my subsequent posts through Selection Sunday I repeatedly said that I thought winning the BET could be enough though I didn't think so.
I thought we were getting a 3 seed. I was wrong. I never said and I never meant to imply that my prediction was a certainty. What I was trying to do was push back on other's posts who were stating that a 2 seed was a certainty regardless of how the teams around us performed.
I made a wrong prediction. I accept being dunked on as my penance. I'm just glad that it was one of my negative predictions for MU that was wrong for a change.
Fair enough — sorry to pile on. It was just a hot button issue on the scoop for a few weeks there.
Now we can all appreciate the 2-seed and get ready to watch tnis tournament.
Quote from: TwoWords on March 15, 2023, 11:58:34 AM
Fair enough — sorry to pile on. It was just a hot button issue on the scoop for a few weeks there.
Now we can all appreciate the 2-seed and get ready to watch tnis tournament.
One thing that really helped us is that our opponents and wins ended up being UCONN & Xavier, and going 4-2 overall was huge. Had Baylor beaten ISU the last two games would had been a coin flip.